The current Opposition spin that it is an unreasonable and arrogant Federal Government which will not sit down and discuss attitudes to its climate-change proposals while accusing the Government of indulging in politics for refusing to do just that is hypocrisy of the highest order.
The public is not impressed with deals arrived at behind closed doors. What we want is an open debate on proposals argued in the public arena.
We want to hear and see details of arguments for and against detailed proposals, not vague options placed before us through the local media (which might impose an emphasis to push its own opinions or become more sensational in its delivery).
The place for such a discussion which the Leader of the Opposition demands from the Government should take place in the Parliament for all to hear or read about.
We do not need closed-door discussions between Government and Opposition, with the Government using its position to indulge in vulgar, rude politics or the Opposition using its outcome to accuse the Government of being intransigent.
With an open discussion in Parliament we can make our own judgment on the merits of each proposal and suggested amendment.
We are already aware that the Opposition opposes the Government's legislation on climate change, but we do not know on which aspects they might agree, which they cannot support and the reasons for their stance.
Until they submit firm amendments there cannot be real debate: consequently there is a lack of informed reaction from the public, relayed to their representatives.
Patrick Flynn,
Page
TIME TO GET SERIOUS
Now that the Senate has rightly rejected Labor's climate-change handout of $16 billion of taxpayers' money to giant polluters, Kevin Rudd should get serious about addressing the key issue he was elected to manage better than the Coalition climate change.
Pass the renewable energy legislation immediately, and then get serious about a massive cut to carbon emissions instead of trying to blame the disorganised Opposition.
Labor can't have it both ways: on one hand it says the Opposition is hopelessly divided and indecisive, yet on the other it says it has been prevented from taking comprehensive action on climate change.
The Government needs to get serious and stop playing politics with the planet's future.
Alan Gray,
Broome, WA
LET'S HEAR THE EVIDENCE
Danielle Cronin in her article ''Flawed logic used to oppose green Bill'' (August 13, p5) stated that Will Steffen declined an invitation to make a presentation along with Professor Bob Carter before the Senate.
That is not surprising, as Al Gore wouldn't appear and debate with climate sceptic Lord Monckton before the US Senate either.
Do you see a pattern developing here ?
Is Will Steffen afraid that he won't be able to hold up his end in a debate?
You can bet on that.
The alarmists have only computer climate models (fantasy computing) to use as evidence and that is no evidence at all.
Is there evidence of a vested interest in supporting this foolish theory ?
John McKerral,
Batemans Bay, NSW
BURMA ACTION NEEDED
I was so pleased to see the article on Commonwealth Government action in relation to Suu Kyi's sentence (''Foes join to slam Suu Kyi sentence'', 12 August, p1).
I have opposed, as has Suu Kyi herself, the Howard government's policy of ''engagement'' with the Burma military junta over many years and have had numerous letters printed in your paper to that effect.
Support for the junta from countries like China and India has made such a policy irrelevant and the Government must take a stronger line in international condemnation of the Burmese military.
As a former member of the Indochinese Refugee Association and a host ''daddy'' to two delightful Laotian families, it pains me to see what is happening in Burma, so much so that I actually included a handwritten plea to Kevin Rudd in a letter I sent to him on July 3, 2009, in relation to questionable activities of some ALP staffers.
Whether this had any impact I would not know, but it is incumbent on all those who believe in democracy to pressure our Government on this and related issues.
There are too many apathetic members of our community who are unwilling to get up and at least try to do something to further the cause of the oppressed.
Ric Hingee,
Duffy
ENGAGEMENT IS BEST
I agree with Morten Pedersen's approach to the situation in Burma (''Slow journey to opening eyes'', August 13, p17).
Rather than go along with the proposal of certain European countries for a fresh round of sanctions so as to make Burma's isolation more complete, Pedersen is in favour of the more arduous, political, path to help the government interact with the people.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves that the pro-democratic leader Aung San Suu Kyi will not have spent 14 of the past 20 years under house arrest had the sanctions approach been successful.
I am afraid that the dialogue of persuasion through UN engagement, though unlikely to yield instant results, is the only way to make the military regime in Burma realise that thwarting the democratic aspiration of its people can never serve Burma's interests and lead to national reconciliation.
Sam Nona,
Burradoo, NSW
GREAT EXPECTATIONS
Usually I don't take much notice of ads, but the full-pager that a mob called Chevron have been running from time to time in your paper has really got me going.
''The world is growing by more than 70 million people a year,'' it informs us.
''So is that a problem, or a solution?'' It goes on to note that ''to meet everyone's needs 25 years from now may take 50per cent more energy than we use today''.
Sound like a problem to you?
Not at all, because, says Chevron, ''mankind has proven its ability to take on, and overcome, any issue''.
And here I was worrying about what will happen as world oil supplies dwindle, rivers run lower, food shortages start to afflict more and more countries.
Silly me! I belong to a super-species that can overcome any issue.
What twaddle, Chevron; what hubris.
G. Jones,
Torrens
NUCLEAR TOO IS FINITE
I wonder if Alan Parkinson (Letters, August 13) would be willing to share his designs for the perpetual motion device that he seems to have discovered.
Despite his claims that nuclear energy is the only true renewable source, I unfortunately must point out that nuclear energy is no more renewable any other source of energy.
The first law of thermodynamics dictates that any attempt to recycle spent nuclear fuel, such as plutonium, must consume a larger amount of energy than one would expect to gain back in return, such as using the resulting uranium to generate electricity, making the process futile.
Sadly, neither do we have access to an infinite supply of uranium or plutonium.
Just like fossil fuels, once nuclear fuel is exhausted, we have no practical way of getting more of it.
It must also be noted that the given examples of wind and solar energy can both be attributed to energy sourced from the sun, the product of the nuclear fusion that occurs within our resident star.
Human life is acutely reliant on the products of nuclear physics, however as sad as it may be, they are not truly renewable and we must learn to harness them wisely.
Michael Mazengarb,
Monash
NURSES AND DOCTORS
It is a worrying portent that from the most venerable cathedral of learning in the land (ANU), a medical student speculates if the community might be ''willing to entrust their health to nurses'' (''Nurses answer to GP shortage'', August 13, p17).
Obviously little has changed over decades, since Bruce Shepherd, AMA president 1990-1993, cast aspersions on the nursing profession.
Year after year nurses top community lists of most trusted professionals.
Nursing has a proud, rich, millennium-long history.
Medical practitioners have legitimacy given them by legislation, and the title ''doctor'' is a legal creation, as distinct from academic doctorates earned from extended, rigorous, ground-breaking study.
Were it not for this legal creation, ruthlessly protected by AMA union bosses, doctors might still be barbers, earning pin money by performing the odd amputation or smiths cauterising the occasional wound!
Albert M. White,
Queanbeyan, NSW
In Christine Godden's excellent article (''Nurses answer to GP shortage'' August 13, p17) she reminds us that overworked GPs can only suggest lifestyle changes and appropriate medication for the growing population of over-65 patients.
In any GP's waiting room today a large percentage of patients are there because of poor lifestyle choices over a long period of time.
They are eating too much food, drinking too much alcohol, carrying too much weight and smoking cigarettes.
Start making the hard choices in these areas and be disciplined about daily walking and taking other exercise, and the results over time will be amazing.
So often our present lifestyle choices mean that we are digging our graves with our mouths and all the GPs in the world will not be able to help us.
Robert Willson,
Deakin
COUNTING THE COST
So much discussion has taken place recently about alternative energy that I wish someone would come up with an answer very quickly.
It would interest all electricity consumers to know that in 2007 I paid AGL $29 per fortnight for power, in 2008 I paid $49 per fortnight and now I have to pay $68.
In my wildest dreams I cannot imagine how the costs of power have increased by over 50 per cent per annum.
I might add that my home has gas heating, hot water and cooking items.
E. Lipsham,
Isabella Plains
Email a friend